California set to execute Michael Morales

[minors]

Story from Pro Death Penalty Center:

 

 

Michael Morales was convicted of raping and murdering 17-year-old Terri Winchell in January 1981. On January 8, 1981, twenty-one-year-old Michael Morales murdered and raped seventeen year-old Terri Lynn Winchell, with his nineteen-year-old cousin, Rick Ortega. In early 1980, Ortega and a seventeen-year-old male named Randy had a homosexual relationship. During this time, Randy also had a dating relationship with Terri Winchell. While Terri didn’t know about the homosexual relationship of Randy and Ortega, Ortega knew about Randy’s and Terri’s relationship. Ortega was extremely jealous of this relationship. Ortega and Morales conspired to murder Terri as “pay back” for Terri’s involvement with Randy. Ortega and Randy had a stormy relationship. Ortega reacted in threatening manner to Randy’s attempts to end their relationship. Ortega was also openly hostile towards Terri. In the weeks before the murder, Ortega set up a ruse to trick Terri into believing that Ortega wanted to make amends and become her friend. Morales “practiced” how he was going to strangle Terri, and told his girlfriend on the day of the murder how he was going to strangle and “hurt” someone. The day of the murder, Ortega tricked Terri into accompanying him and Morales in Ortega’s car to a remote area near Lodi, California. There, Morales attacked Terri from behind and attempted to strangle her with his belt. Terri struggled and the belt broke in two. Morales then took out a hammer and began hitting Terri in the head with it. She screamed for Ortega to help and attempted to fight off the attack, ripping her own hair out of her scalp in the struggle. Morales beat Terri into unconsciousness, crushing her skull and leaving 23 identifiable wounds in her skull. Morales took Terri from the car and instructed Ortega to leave and come back later. Ortega left and Morales then dragged Terri face-down across the road and into a vineyard. Morales then raped her while she lay unconscious. Morales then started to leave, but went back and stabbed Terri four times in the chest to make sure she died. Morales then left Terri, calling her “a f***ing b****,” as he walked away. Terri died from both the head and chest wounds. Her body was left in the vineyard naked from the waist down, with her sweater and bra pulled up over her breasts. Morales confessed to killing Terri to a jailhouse informant, as well as to his girlfriend and his housemate. Morales threatened both women prior to his trial so they would not testify about what he told them. Specifically, he admitted that he sat behind Terri after she had been lured into Ortega’s car, he put his belt around Terri’s neck and strangled her until the belt broke, he repeatedly hit her over the head with a hammer until she was unconscious, he took her out of the car and dragged her into a vineyard, he raped her, and he left her but then returned to be “sure” she was dead. Within two days of the murder, Morales was arrested at his residence. The police found Morales’ broken belt, containing Terri’s blood, hidden under a bedroom mattress. The police also found three knives, the hammer bearing traces of blood hidden in the refrigerator vegetable crisper, and blood-stained floor mats from Ortega’s car in the trash. Terri’s purse and credit card were also in the house. Ortega’s blood-spattered car was impounded. Morales had used $11 from Terri’s purse to buy beer, wine, and cigarettes on the night of the murder. Ortega, tried separately, was sentenced to life in prison. Morales had been previously convicted of felony burglary on October 4, 1979 and sentenced to prison. Shortly after killing Terri Lynn Winchell, Morales was convicted of two counts of robbery for which he was eventually sentenced to state prison. In that case, Morales entered a market to purchase beer. When a store clerk would not allow him to purchase beer, he left and later returned with two companions. Morales and the two others held the clerk, put a knife to his face, hit him with a milk crate and kicked him. One of his companions then knocked down a pregnant female clerk who suffered numerous head and facial cuts. The total loss of money, merchandise and equipment damage was $2,529.

 

 

Lets hope come Wednesday Morales is finally executed.

[Rowand44]

Rot in hell asshole.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Yes because spending more money than it would take to house him with life without parole would be such a great idea. Killers must really get the right idea that killing is wrong -- because if you do it, the state gets to kill you back.

 

And nice of you to leave out the fact that the "cornerstone" of the State's case came from a jailhouse snitch who lied. The use of jailhouse informants -- contemporaneous inmates who claim to have extracted the confessions of killers while awaiting their trials -- is a regular feature of death penalty trials. Samuelson told the jury that Morales had confessed to him in jail, and gave chilling details about how he planned the murder and how he boasted about it many months later. His testimony was particularly relevant in the jury's verdict for death because he provided the evidence of a "special circumstance" -- a requirement to elevate 1st-degree murder to capital murder. Calling it "the cornerstone" of the government's case, presiding judge McGrath stated: "Mr. Samuelson's testimony describing the confession was the only evidence to support the single special circumstance...that made Mr. Morales eligible for the death penalty."

 

At the time of the Morales' trial, Bruce Samuelson was facing six felony charges, which led Parole Officer Vickie Wetherell to recommend "immediate commitment to state prison." Instead, after writing to Morales' prosecutor promising that he could provide the evidence that would guarantee a conviction with special circumstances (death penalty), the prosecutor dropped 4 of the 6 charges against him, and managed to get court approval of a very light county jail sentence for the remaining 2 charges in exchange for his damning testimony. "I had no doubt that without the plea bargain, such a repeated offender would have been sentenced to prison," Wetherell has declared. "The fact that Samuelson escaped full adjudication and punishment was disconcerting."

 

But how do we know that what Samuelson told the jury was a lie? Because when asked years later by the attorney general how he managed to elicit so much damning information from the accused in a crowded jail cell without any other inmate hearing their alleged conversations, Samuelson boasted of his Spanish language skills ("I was very fluent in it, reading, writing and speaking, both formal and informal, or 'Spang/lish,' 'ghetto Spanish' and in educated Spanish") and asserted that he and Morales had conducted their confessional sessions in Spanish. There is only one problem with this explanation: Michael Morales, a 4th-generation American, does not speak Spanish!

 

This raises the question: How did Samuelson get the specific details about those involved in this crime if not from the defendant himself? Good jailhouse informants have become quite adept at gleaning details from the public record by passing themselves off as parties to the legal process or as law enforcement officials entitled to confidential information.

 

Unfortunately, this is all too common. When 13 of those condemned to death in Illinois were later exonerated, the Illinois Commission on Capital Punishment found that nearly half were convicted as the result of false testimony of jailhouse informants. In California, more than 200 inmates have been released from prison since 1989 because of unreliable trials, and, according to a recent report conducted by San Francisco Magazine, 1 in 5 was convicted on the basis of false testimony of such informants.

--

 

Now the bastard may very well be guilty and deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life -- but the use of the jailhouse testimony lie to up it to a capital case is total and complete BS. I'm not saying let the guy out -- but commute the sentence to life without parole, especially in light of the evidence about this "cornerstone" of the State's capital case.

 

But who needs logic and reason when there's an execution afoot cuz killing is wrong! (that is unless the state is doing the killing)

[BigSqwert]

And the U.S. is still the only Western civilized country with capital punishment. I guess those other countries have unbelievably higher murder rates since our precious capital punishment serves as a wonderful deterrent.

[minors]

But who needs logic and reason when there's an execution afoot cuz killing is wrong! (that is unless the state is doing the killing)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

One thing I agree with you on is the punishment.

 

The Punishment Morales will get is far less than what he deserves, The state should strangle him with a belt, take a hammer to his skull 23 times, drag him face down for 20 feet and stab him in the chest 4 times.

Then he will know how it felt. Serving life in prison is nothing to this thug we need to start making these thugs pay for their actions, not slap them on the wrists like some group of people want to do then wonder why it doens't work.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

One thing I agree with you on is the punishment.

 

The Punishment Morales will get is far less than what he deserves, The state should strangle him with a belt, take a hammer to his skull 23 times, drag him face down for 20 feet and stab him in the chest 4 times. 

Then he will know how it felt.  Serving life in prison is nothing to this thug we need to start making these thugs pay for their actions, not slap them on the wrists like some group of people want to do then wonder why it doens't work.

What do you have to say about the fact that the jailhouse snitch lied in this case (whose testimony, according to prosecutors, was the "cornerstone" of their capital case? This isn't innocent or guilty thing. It was the jailhouse snitch testimony that took it from a life without parole to a death sentence case. So, let's get that out there before everybody mistakes what I said.

[minors]

And nice of you to leave out the fact that the "cornerstone" of the State's case came from a jailhouse snitch who lied.

 

 

First of all I copied the story from the site so I didn't forget anything. And you make it sound like that is the entire case, but you would be forgetting the broken belt in his place (with the victim's blood) and 3 knives (one that had the victims blood on it and ruled the murder weapon) That makes him guilty of 1st degree murder then the rape pushes it up to capital murder.

 

I can't believe you could stand up for a thug like this someone who has to rape a person after they are dead???

[minors]

What do you have to say about the fact that the jailhouse snitch lied in this case (whose testimony, according to prosecutors, was the "cornerstone" of their capital case?  This isn't innocent or guilty thing.  It was the jailhouse snitch testimony that took it from a life without parole to a death sentence case.  So, let's get that out there before everybody mistakes what I said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So all the physical evidence is garbage so is the motive and oppurtunity as well... Give me a break. I guess the jail house informant planted that as well. The anti DP people are something else they are against it until it something happens to someone they love then it's great.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

And nice of you to leave out the fact that the "cornerstone" of the State's case came from a jailhouse snitch who lied.

First of all I copied the story from the site so I didn't forget anything. And you make it sound like that is the entire case, but you would be forgetting the broken belt in his place (with the victim's blood) and 3 knives (one that had the victims blood on it and ruled the murder weapon) That makes him guilty of 1st degree murder then the rape pushes it up to capital murder.

 

I can't believe you could stand up for a thug like this someone who has to rape a person after they are dead???

Actually I take the stance of "Thou shalt not kill" not "Thou shalt not kill amend section A". Killing him doesn't do anything except satisfy a bloodlust and causes another family pain. Not to mention the fact that implementing the death penalty actually costs more than life without parole. I'm anti-war, believe abortion should be safe, legal and rare (teach kids ways of safe sex i.e. condoms, birth control, etc. so there will be a drastic decrease in unwanted pregnancies) but there for the cases where it needs to be used like rape/incest etc. and anti-capital punishment -- so no need to hit me with the "Well, you're a liberal who likes abortion!" because I have serious moral reservations about it. I just believe that it should be legal for cases where it would be necessary. I also believe that a sane, rational discussion about sex and sexuality with both parents and the schools would greatly alleviate the need for abortions -- much moreso than merely making it illegal.

 

I fail to see how the populus learns that killing is wrong by killing a person as well.

 

And for more Morales centered discussion -- The aggravating factor of “lying in wait” and with the special circumstance of “lying in wait” was not very clear to the jury and is not even clear to some judges. The aggravating factor elevates a murder charge to first-degree murder, while a special circumstance opens the door for sentences of life without parole and death. In a dissenting opinion, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge M. Margaret McKeown argued that the “lying in wait” special circumstance has become so broad as to include nearly every person on trial for murder. This expansive applicability of the death penalty would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, there was even confusion among the judges regarding when “lying in wait” is a special circumstance and when it is an aggravating factor, suggesting that the whole distinction is far too delicate for a jury to hang a human life upon. How is giving him life without parole in a maximum security facility some sort of cakewalk?

[minors]

What do you have to say about the fact that the jailhouse snitch lied in this case (whose testimony, according to prosecutors, was the "cornerstone" of their capital case?  This isn't innocent or guilty thing.  It was the jailhouse snitch testimony that took it from a life without parole to a death sentence case.  So, let's get that out there before everybody mistakes what I said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It was their cornerstone in 1983, but you forget that DNA testing has become an almost exact science since then and the the DNA tests on the blood on the weapons was Terri's CASE CLOSED

[minors]

You are right I hate that Death is the only option for thugs like this. I perfer to strap him to a post and beat him within a inch of his life and to make sure that he could never live a normal life again. But then it is cruel punishment and the ACLU doesn't seem to understand that the person killed also had rights and they were violated as well.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

It also always made me wonder how people who thought that government led bureaucracies had too much authority with poverty payments, health care, etc. could be fine with the State having the authority to take a life. For people that believe the government is incompetent with money and the way it is spent, why allow it to have the authority to take lives then?

 

And Minors -- between the lying in wait discussions in legal circles that can't pinpoint how it should be applied & the jailhouse snitch lie, there is pretty questionable evidence to kick it to a Murder 1 conviction.

 

Your bloodlust is clouding your vision. I'm not saying let him out of jail. I'm just saying don't stick the needle in his arm because the evidence putting him over the top from life to death is pretty questionable.

 

It was not the DNA evidence that kicked him up there from life to death penalty. It was the "lying in wait" premeditation statute. When judges can't figure out when and how it should be applied, then it is damn questionable to be using that as a justification to kill a person. The other thing was the jailhouse "confession" which the snitch lied about. So both aspects of what they wanted to use to get the needle in his arm fall under dubious distinction.

 

Yeah, what the guy did was bad but what's gained out of executing him? Nothing. Don't you think people will learn that violence is bad by example much moreso than by strongarming them with threats?

[Flash Tizzle]

Yeah, what the guy did was bad but what's gained out of executing him?  Nothing.  Don't you think people will learn that violence is bad by example much moreso than by strongarming them with threats?

 

I've studied countless documents pertaining to corporal punishment, and explanantions of those opposing and supporting it.

 

I understand executing criminals isn't a deterrent. I understand victims of families often don't recover from their losses whether or not an execution is granted. I understand the cost differential between life-in-prison and an execution.

 

However, I believe you can't completely remove the death penalty. Call it primitive justice, but if someone commits a heinous crime AND it's proven beyond reasonable doubt they perpetrated the act, they shouldn't be allowed to continue life.

 

I hate to drag abortion into this, but I still can't comprehend how liberals are so adament about the right to choose abortion, yet simultaneously oppose the death penalty? Personally, I support pro-choice--but not because of religious issues or debate relating to the life status of a fetus. Often the individuals who seek abortions are economically disadvantaged women who couldn't possibly raise their children in a nuturing environment.

 

LCR, I'm interested in how you feel about Zacarias Moussai? Or Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacey, or Timothy McVeigh? If we could guarantee what happened to Dahmer occured to everyone guilty of murder, or another vile act, I'd be completely in favor of abolishing the dealth penalty. Both sides of the issue could rejoice.

Edited February 18, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I've studied countless documents pertaining to corporal punishment, and explanantions of those opposing and supporting it.

 

I understand executing criminals isn't a deterrent. I understand victims of families often don't recover from their losses whether or not an execution is granted. I understand the cost differential between life-in-prison and an execution.

 

However, I believe you can't completely remove the death penalty. Call it primitive justice, but if someone commits a hanneous crime AND it's proven beyond reasonable doubt they perpetrated the act, they shouldn't be allowed to continue life.

 

I hate to drag abortion into this, but I still can't comprehend how liberals are so adament about the right to choose abortion, yet oppose the death penalty? Personally, I support pro-choice--but not because of religious issues or debate relating to the life status of a fetus. Often the individuals who seek abortions are economically disadvantaged women who couldn't possibly raise their children in a nuturing environment.

 

LCR, I'm interested in how you feel about Zacarias Moussai? Or Jeffery Dahmer,  John Wayne Gacey, or Timothy McVeigh? If we could guarantee what happened to Dahmer occured to everyone guilty of murder, or another vile act, I'd be completely in favor of abolishing the dealth penalty. Both sides of the issue could rejoice. 

Flash, that's the thing about the heinous crime and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Human beings are fallible. You can let a guy out of prison if the system f***ed up. You can't bring a dead guy back to life to say "Oops!"

 

The system is biased against the poor and minorities (the Supreme Court has admitted as much with Marshall and McClesky v Kemp where the now famous Baldus study came into play) So much evidence shows that the system of capital punishment is incredibly faulty and needs to be obliterated.

 

With Moussaoui, Dahmer, Gacy, McVeigh et al. -- they're severely disturbed individuals and sociopaths. Keeping them in prison and away from the regular populus is the important thing. Killing them doesn't bring any of the victims back and in the cases of McVeigh and Moussaoui especially, it can turn them into a martyr of sorts for the right-wing extremist militants and Al Qaeda supporters respectively. If you have kept them separated from the normal population of functional citizens, then the justice system has done its job.

[KipWellsFan]

For maximum deterrent effect there must be maximum penalty and I'm not just talking about death, I'm talking about inflicting maximum pain without actually killing the person, over and over again for the rest of their lives. I mean if you're going to try and deter and don't care about the value of human life or potential for change in a person you might as well go full-bore and not pussy out with some weak ass injection.

Edited February 18, 2006 by KipWellsFan

[BHAMBARONS]

On this case I have to agree with Minors in cases where there was such a disrespect for human life, I can't have much sympathy for him.

 

I also had no idea it costs $92 dollars a day to house an inmate. This has really made me take a look at capital punishment

[Balta1701]

On this case I have to agree with Minors in cases where there was such a disrespect for human life, I can't have much sympathy for him.

 

I also had no idea it costs $92 dollars a day to house an inmate.  This has really made me take a look at capital punishment

Did it make you rethink capital punishment in that you're now more supportive of it or more in opposition to it? I don't have the numbers right now (And i'm on dial-up, so I'm a little too lazy to run through Google) but I'm fairly certain that in almost every case it costs massively more to put an inmate through the death penalty procedures than it does to just jail them for life, because in part of all the legal filings associated with death penalty cases, the extra guards, the arrangements, etc.

[BHAMBARONS]

Did it make you rethink capital punishment in that you're now more supportive of it or more in opposition to it?  I don't have the numbers right now (And i'm on dial-up, so I'm a little too lazy to run through Google) but I'm fairly certain that in almost every case it costs massively more to put an inmate through the death penalty procedures than it does to just jail them for life, because in part of all the legal filings associated with death penalty cases, the extra guards, the arrangements, etc.

 

 

Well In opposition becuase we still are paying the 92/day plus trial and execution costs. From my research paper I can tell you it costs 1.2 M to try a capital case and close to a million for execution

[minors]

Well In opposition becuase we still are paying the 92/day plus trial and execution costs.  From my research paper I can tell you it costs 1.2 M to try a capital case and close to a million for execution

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well it isn't about costs it is about justice. Also we need to speed up appeals to make them only have one.

[whitesoxfan99]

Well it isn't about costs it is about justice.  Also we need to speed up appeals to make them only have one.

 

So in your mind the only way to have justice is for the death penalty to be administered?

[minors]

So in your mind the only way to have justice is for the death penalty to be administered?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

In murder cases where the crime is so harsh then yes the DP is the only way. The chance is to great for him getting out. Even it means he has 1% chance that is 1% to much

[whitesoxfan99]

In murder cases where the crime is so harsh then yes the DP is the only way.  The chance is to great for him getting out.  Even it means he has 1% chance that is 1% to much

 

Then how do you handle the problem of potentially killing innocent people by implementing the death penalty? It can't work both ways. I still wouldn't be in favor of the death penalty but if there was 100% certainty that a party was guilty I could understand those that were in favor of it. With that not being the reality I find it nearly impossible to support the death penalty in any case.

[minors]

Then how do you handle the problem of potentially killing innocent people by implementing the death penalty?  It can't work both ways.  I still wouldn't be in favor of the death penalty but if there was 100% certainty that a party was guilty I could understand those that were in favor of it.  With that not being the reality I find it nearly impossible to support the death penalty in any case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

How about to a confessed baby killer with DNA matches on murder weapon and on victim.

[whitesoxfan99]

How about to a confessed baby killer with DNA matches on murder weapon and on victim.

 

Stick him in jail for life and let the inmates have their way with him

Edited February 19, 2006 by whitesoxfan99

[minors]

Stick him in jail for life and let the inmates have their way with him

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well down here he would not live 1 year in Prison